Yesterday, 26 of the league's 32 owners voted to change the NFL's kickoff rules, moving the placement of the ball from the 30- to the 35-yard line.

[Leon] Washington and others around the league said the change, made to address player-safety issues, would breed more touchbacks and substantially impact field position, likely leading to less scoring.

"There just won't be as many returns, and I think it's going to affect things like scoring, and there'll be more of an emphasis on directional kicking ...," Cincinnati Bengals special-teams coach Darrin Simmons told his team's official website. "There are going to be more touchbacks and more 80-yard drives, and scoring drops sharply because there are a lot more scoring drives of 70 yards than drives over 80."

Touchbacks will continue to be brought out to the 20, and teams still will be allowed to use the two-man blocking wedge.

Fan reaction has been mostly negative. Cries about player safety from fans discussing an 18-game schedule have turned into cries about "ruining the game" when it comes to minimizing special teams. In reality, most of these complaints are due to a general resistance to change, with whatever the flavor du jour serving as a comfortable red herring.

But what about the claim that this will decrease scoring? Nate Dunleavy agrees:

A league-wide reduction in offense. Because even the worst special teams units generally start on the good side of the 20 after kickoffs (I believe Indy started around the 22), an increase in touchbacks will move average starting field position backwards for all NFL teams. Teams with good return games will be hurt more than teams with bad return games, but all teams should see their average starting field position go backwards, even Indy. There is a very strong relationship between starting field position and the points a team can expect to score. The cumulative effect of dozens of extra touchbacks will be a reduction in scoring. As noted, the Colts should feel this pinch far less than most teams, as it will likely affect their starting field position after kickoffs by less than a yard or so.

I'm not so sure I agree with Nate; while teams receiving a kickoff may be less likely to score, by definition, teams kicking off will be more likely to score next. In reality, this rule change is sure to have little actual impact on scoring, but that doesn't mean we can't engage in a quick thought exercise. Let's take this rule change to the extreme: suppose instead of teams kicking off from the 30-yard line, from now on the opposing team gets possession of the ball at their own 7-yard line. How would that impact play?

At the start of every half, and following every touchdown and field goal, instead of getting a chance to receive and return a kickoff, a team is placed in the shadow of their own goal-posts. How would this impact scoring? It's obvious that it would make scoring more difficult for the "receiving" team. However, it would make scoring less difficult for the "kicking" team. How do those elements balance out?

We assume that following a kickoff, a team will start its drive at, on average, the 27-yard line. According to David Romer, that is worth 0.7 points to the offensive team. Having the ball at your own 7-yard line is worth 0.6 points to the defensive team. In that case, the team on offense is less likely to score than its opponent. For the offense, this hypothetical rule change would cost it 1.3 points following each kickoff compared to where things stand today.

Now, scoring a touchdown is worth 6.3 points, on average. Under this scenario, a touchdown is worth 7.6 points. Considering that last season there were 9.6 kickoffs per game, this would be a serious change to the way the game is played. However, does that *necessarily* mean less scoring? Couldn't it mean even more scoring? Or would it be a zero-sum game, where if one team scores less the other scores more?
For the most part -- including from the 7-yard line to the 27-yard line, field position values are linear. The table below lists the approximate value of having possession of the ball on 1st down at each yard line:

As you can see, going from the 7- to the 27-yard line is worth 1.31 points to the offense, or 0.66 points per 10 yards. Going from the 27- to the 47-yard line is worth 1.16 points, or 0.58 PP10Y. How about from the 27 to your opponents' 27? That's 2.59 points, or 0.56 PP10Y. Going from the 7 to the 7 is worth 0.60 PP10Y.

Assume three incomplete passes. Instead of having the ball at the 7-yard line -- which is worth -0.6 points to the offense -- they punt and the opponent takes over at the 47, which is worth -2.1 points to the punting team. If they had the ball at the 27-yard line -- worth 1.3 points to the offense -- following a three-and-out and a 40-yard punt, the opposing team would get the ball at their own 33-yard line, which is worth -1.1 points to the punting team.

What's that all mean? Following a standard drive that gains zero yards, a team loses 1.5 points to the opposing team. Following a standard drive that gains zero yards under this hypothetical rule environment, a team loses.... 1.4 points to the opposing team. It's a slightly less painful transition because it's exponentially harder to score from inside one's own ten yard line, where it's only slightly more difficult to score from your 33-yard line than your opponent's 47-yard line.

But what about a *good* drive? A 50-yard bomb from your own 7 takes you to your opponent's 43-yard line, a value of 2.3 points and a net improvement of 2.9 points. A 50-yard completion from your 27-yard line is an improvement of ... 2.85 points. Again, we are not discussing significant improvements.

And that's *with* a huge change in starting field position, from your own 27 (on average) to your own 7. The actual change will certainly result in a few more touchbacks, but I suspect average starting field position following a kickoff will be around the 23-yard line now, instead of the 27. And that will have a negligible impact on the game.

But the points above just discuss the value of having the ball: what about gross scoring? If we moved the starting spot from the 27 to the 7, do games that used to be 27-21 now just finish at 20-13? On some level, scoring has to go down, because we're outlawing kick returns. Kick returns are among the most random plays in a game, and eliminating 9.6 opportunities for a kickoff score or a fumble will slightly depress scoring. Kick returns don't take much time (the clock stops after every one) but can be very high leverage plays. And the great shootouts will probably be deflated. On those days where neither team is playing defense, requiring each team to drive 93 yards instead of 73 yards will just bleed more clock and result in fewer possessions (and scores) for each team. Outside of those events, though, I'm not sure why scoring will go down. Yes, on the margins we might see a decrease, but the kickoff team will now, on average, get its next possession in better field position. For the most part, I think such a rule change would be a wash on net scoring, and this actual rule change is sure to have little impact.

But the biggest issue with the hypothetical rule change would come stylistically. Right now, each possession resembles each possession in tennis or chess or baseball. After my turn to serve or move or bat, it's your turn. After I score a touchdown, you are now in a more favorable position to score. After I served, or moved my knight, or had six players up at bat, you are now in a more favorable position to gain an edge. But if we change the value of receiving a "kickoff" from +0.7 to -0.6, the sport switches and begins to resemble billiards or backyard basketball played under "Winner's Out" rules.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, going from "Winner's Out" to "Loser's Out" doesn't change your probability of winning a game, regardless of the skill level difference between you and your opponent. But by that same token, "Winner's Out" rules -- where following a score, the scoring player or team regains possession -- lead to streaky behavior.

If the NFL actually instituted the "7-yard line" rule, we would see many more historic comebacks. For now, the Bills' 32-point comeback over the Oilers in the 1992 playoffs remains the largest comeback in league history. But a "Winner's Out" response to scoring would make it easier to both (a) grab a large lead early and (b) come back from a large lead late. If after every touchdown the opposing team got the ball at the 7, this wouldn't be an incredibly rare start to a game:

Drive 1: Team A touchdown
Drive 2: Team B three and out; punts.
Drive 3: Team A takes possession of ball at 50. Touchdown.
Drive 4: Team B three and out; punts.
Drive 5: Team A takes possession of ball at 50. Touchdown.

Just like that, and it's 21-0. Of course, it your team is trailing by 35 points in the second half, you still have hope. The key takeaway, in my opinion, is not that moving the kickoff from the 30- to the 35-yard line will decrease scoring, but rather that it will (imperceptibly, of course) increase big comebacks. Kicking teams will be further incentivized to try onsides kicks, as the receiving team will be five yards further away from the kicking team's end zone in the event of an unsuccessful kick. More onside kicks and the ability to pin the receiving team deep will lead to larger comebacks. And it will simply lead to streakier behavior by both teams, in general.

Of course, this is just on a league-wide basis. The much larger impacts will come on the team level, where the Browns, Bears, Seahawks and Jets will be hurt. Chargers fans, rejoice: we're one step closing to removing special teams entirely.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 23rd, 2011 at 3:12 pm and is filed under Rule Change Proposals.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

There are lots of scenarios where five extra yards working against an offense won't be made up by the opposing defense, however. Mostly I think of medium length drives that wind up in no-mans land between the 50 and the other 35. Drives like these don't result in a true 'trade off' of yards for the other team. The 5-7 yards lost to the touchback may keep a team out of field goal range, without being recouped by the defending team (because of touchbacks on punts, awkward pooch kicks, ect).

I do believe this will have some small effect on scoring when multiplied out across the whole league over the course of the season.

Of course, if offenses don't have the normal offseason to prepare, perhaps we won't know for sure until 2012 if the kickoff rule is the only factor.

1. I think, like Nate, that there will be a slight decrease in scoring league-wide, but because of the fact that you mention--less KR TD's.
2. IMO, there will be 2 options for the kicking team: a) just boom it (which will probably result in a touchback 50% of the time); b) kick it high, "short", and trying to pin it close to the sideline.
3. We all know that the kicker gets more distance on KO's than FG's. So here's a weird idea: have your kicker kick it like a FG, aiming for the right for a right-footed kicker, left for a lefty--BUT NOT OFF A TEE! Have another ST player hold it like the holder. There's already one regular player on the kickoff team who can be the "holder" in case the ball falls off the tee in the wind. For most kickers, without worrying about EXACT direction, timing, defenders, and the 10-foot height of the crossbar, they can probably kick it off the ground just about 65 yds--exactly to the goal line. While this might not be the best strategy for the Ravens and Raiders (Cundiff and SeaBass), it might be for teams whose FG kicker is not known for his strong leg.

Well pfr has some nice numbers to show the potential impact of this rule.

In 1993 there were an average of 49.3 kick returns per team when kicking off from the 30 yard line. 3.1 per team per game.

The rule was changed in 1994 to kick off from the 35 yard line.

In 1994 there were 65.8 kickoff returns per team when kicking off, an average of 4.1 per team per game.

That is a 32.2% increase, nearly 1/3rd.

That number for the most part has not changed. looking at the last 8 years, 3.9-4.2 is the range per team per game. Last year was 63.5 kickoff returns per game, a difference of less than 2.5 returns per team per season in 16 years.

So by those numbers we should see the number of kickoff returns drop back to that 3.1 range.

Of course there might be another thing to take into consideration. That the average kickers leg strength might be better, but still that distance of 75 yards (5 yards deep in the end zone from the 30) remains the same.

Lets use a baseball analogy... Lets say 5% of MLB pitchers can throw 102+MPH on their fastball 15 years ago and that number hasn't changed today. But what if only 10% could pitch a 98MPH pitch back then and 20% can today. If we "gave" them an extra 5 MPH, we would have 25% pitching 102+ today vs. just 15% back in the day.

In other words, if more kickers are able to kick 1-2 yards deep in the end zone than was possible in 1994 from the 30, it wouldn't effect the number of returns in the past 16 years, but that means more possible touchbacks by moving the ball 5 yards further than we had in 1993.

One possible correlation to that point is that the average return was 21.2 yards in 1994, and it is 22.3 today. Now this could be due to rule changes in return blocking, better attention paid, better training to return men, etc. But a longer average return could also mean a longer kick (more ground for the coverage teams to cover to get to the ball carrier).

In this case if the average return is 1/3 of the kicking distance, that would mean that a 60 yard average would net a 20 yard return, but if the average moved up to 70 yards, the return average would be 23.3 yards. Again, there are a lot of other possible variables for this difference, but that is one of them.

As for the scoring effect, look at it this way. If we increase touchbacks by 1/3, that means that 1/3 more drives are starting from the 20 next year, rather than the 32 (average starting field position after a kickoff in 2010). That's asking for one more first down per drive. Figure about a 2/3 chance to convert a first down from 1st and 10, and you can see the potential impact. TD's could become FG's, FG's could become punts.

And you can see that impact thanks to PFW in scoring. Remember the rule was implemented because returns had been plummeting in recent years.

1991 league average was 19 points per game
1992 league average was 18.7 points per game
1993 average teams scored 18.4 points per game
1994 from the 30, average teams scored 20.4 points per game
1995 from the 30, average teams scored 21.5 points per game.

The only other rule changes that year were neutral zone infractions, blocking below the waist on special teams plays, and the 2pt conversion. All which may impact the offense a bit, but that starting field position moving up a big chunk is what I would have my money on being the reason for a 5% increase in scoring.

And as the original post above states, it could mean the same scoring as it helps the defensive positioning.

Does it? if you start from the 32 a 35 yard drive puts you in FG range. Your opponent is either getting a great scoring opportunity (you miss it), or that 32 yard line average. If you start from the 20, a 35 yard drive means you are pooch punting and in a huge majority of those situations your opponent is at best hoping for a touchback and getting the ball at the 20. Where's the increase there?

Or if you start at the 32 and put together a 68 yard drive, you have 7 points and kick off to your opponent. If you start at the 20 and have a 68 yard drive you put up a 3 point try from near automatic range. A difference of four points and a longer field for a following score.

And we have the final drives of the halves.

How many 2 minute drills at the end of the first half, or to win the game rather than go into overtime become kneel downs because there is no return?

How many final drives to score end out of fg or TD range because of the return not being deeper (or being a touchback), and there is no ensuing opponent drive to recoup that scoring disparity for the other team?

There are some scenarios where the team receiving the kickoff further back is negated by the other team receiving the punt further up. But in every other scenario it seems, the yardage seems to clearly push towards a lower likelihood of scoring. Yes, I can see where the teams not kicking off will see a higher chance of the return score (before this rule, kicking off in OT was a 50/50 bet. Since it has skewed heavily in favor of the receiving team). But while that might be a 5% increase, if it is a 10% decrease in the first drive scoring you still lost 5% of your leagues scoring.

It's a lot simpler than we are making it out to be. Just look at the trends of touchbacks as a percentage of kickoffs; it increases just about every year because players (kickers included) get stronger over time. They increased every year until 1994 when the kickoff was pushed back to the 30, and after the 1994 dropoff, they continued an upward trend. No matter what Josh Cribbs or Devin Hester says; there will be more touchbacks. They may might be given the discretion to run out kicks from deep in the endzone, less capable returners will not. It maybe makes the best guys even more valuable.

you're assuming too much. For one, it doesn't follow teams will be "incentivized" to try onsides kicks. If anything, coaches will be more likely to kick it away knowing all too frequent long run-backs are much less likely. What is this formula David Romer uses to assess average points based on field position? I'm licking my argumentative, statistically minded chops waiting to hear this one.

it is funny because I thought they moved from the 35 to the 30 in 1994 because their were too many touchbacks and not enough action. Now they want more touchbacks (presumably), if we are tallking about safety (from too much action) being the rationale.

great job NFL lets pussify the game some more. lets not even hit eachother anymore, lets just play flag football instead. that way we can really prevent players from getting owwies and stubbing their toes. the game of football is going to hell in a handbasket. i think i will stick to watching college football from now on. at least the players try, and arent worried about getting a boo boo.